"Anti-church" - the sure way into doom

[tryintogrow]

No, I didn't ask for a consensus. I said it is important that each of us establish what we mean when we use these terms. Your use of a word can have a different meaning to mine, but we have to make that clear to one another if sensible conversation is to take place.

Sensible conversation doesn't happen that way. If it did, there would be fewer arguments and more changed minds.

 

[Allandavid]

Sensible conversation doesn't happen that way. If it did, there would be fewer arguments and more changed minds.

I can only speak for myself. I think it important to explain what is meant when some of these 'slippery' terms are used.

 

[Rajni]

Offense is not a cut-and-dry subject. It isn't entirely based on choosing to not be a victim.

Well no, technically the feeling of having been offended is hinged upon one's personal interpretation of what was said or done that they take offense at.

For example, the only reason I consider certain words offensive is conditioning. Nothing more. After all, I couldn't tell you by whose authority certain words are officially offensive.

It's not okay to be offensive and just tell the other person to get over it.

It depends on what’s being considered “offensive”. There are some pretty outrageous things that are considered offensive. For example, I came across a thread on another forum awhile back where a person claimed to have been offended by someone thanking them. Then there’s the trend that insists that good grammar is not just offensive, it’s oppressive. This sort of thing just confirms in my mind that feelings of offense are an inside job. It’s based on the perceptions of the recipient of the word/action, more than it is on the one uttering the word/committing the action. It’s gotten to the point where it seems as though for every thing you do, there’s someone out there that’s going to be offended by it.

I would rather be given the skills to get over such “offenses” than coddled so that I never get past them. Why would anyone want to keep someone trapped in feelings of offense like that? It’s like being victim is a badge of honor these days. It’s really not. As I said earlier, it’s really debilitating; I was glad to shed that title from myself, even if others would consider me “worthy” of it.

None of the above is saying that this is a green light to try and offend everyone we encounter. It’s simply saying that feeling offended/victimized doesn't do anything to help the one wallowing in those feelings, and that there is a way out (if one truly wants it, of course), and that not everything that gets the "offensive" label slapped onto it is actually intended to offend (such as thanking someone).

 

[quatona]

What did you do? Do you think this should stay associated with atheism or not?

Well, when I tried to prevent you from the error of associating this behaviour with atheism you felt attacked.

 

[quatona]

Well no, technically the feeling of having been offended is hinged upon one's personal interpretation of what was said or done that they take offense at.

For example, the only reason I consider certain words offensive is conditioning. Nothing more. After all, I couldn't tell you by whose authority certain words are officially offensive.

It depends on what’s being considered “offensive”. There are some pretty outrageous things that are considered offensive. For example, I came across a thread on another forum awhile back where a person claimed to have been offended by someone thanking them. Then there’s the trend that insists that good grammar is not just offensive, it’s oppressive. This sort of thing just confirms in my mind that feelings of offense are an inside job. It’s based on the perceptions of the recipient of the word/action, more than it is on the one uttering the word/committing the action. It’s gotten to the point where it seems as though for every thing you do, there’s someone out there that’s going to be offended by it.

I would rather be given the skills to get over such “offenses” than coddled so that I never get past them. Why would anyone want to keep someone trapped in feelings of offense like that? It’s like being victim is a badge of honor these days. It’s really not. As I said earlier, it’s really debilitating; I was glad to shed that title from myself, even if others would consider me “worthy” of it.

None of the above is saying that this is a green light to try and offend everyone we encounter. It’s simply saying that feeling offended/victimized doesn't do anything to help the one wallowing in those feelings, and that there is a way out (if one truly wants it, of course), and that not everything that gets the "offensive" label slapped onto it is actually intended to offend (such as thanking someone).

Being offended requires my willingness to take offense.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I recently had the doubtfull experience of encountering an atheist forum the "thinking atheist" that states in the rules that ad hominem attacks and foul language is allowed.

That's a shame.

1. Such a forum is inacessible to the mentally handicaped as they can not stand such attacks.
2. A meaningfull discussion about physics as I wanted was impossible.

I understand where you're coming from here...but I'd rather not place such limitations on the mentally handicapped. I read a blog once of a woman who had achieved her master's degree from a reputable college (can't remember what major) after she had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. She's supposedly a successful writer and lecturer.

So how can a forum can come up with such harmfull rules that insult common sense?

Common sense is often not all that common.

I think it is because they want to be "anti-church". It is true that the church had a restrictive way of what can be discussed and it as well has a long hold problem with swearing. If you want to be the exact opposite of that than the forum make sense. However some of the rules of the church are extremely reasonable even if you dislike the christian religion itself. I think (?) it was Voltaire who in the french revolution stated that the quick dismantling of the church would result in mayham.

What gave you this idea? I can't say you're wrong...but my first guess would be plain laziness. Moderating a forum takes cooperation and effort...which the forum creator may not be interested in maintaining.

My second guess would be some high prioritization of freedom of expression. Some feel that censorship of any kind is only hurtful.

My third guess would be fairness. Even in a moderated forum such as this, one can get away with insults and rule breaking if they have the right friends who are in charge of moderating. I'm not saying it happens here...just that it could...and if there are no such restrictions on anyone, then everyone is on "equal footing" in that respect.

If atheism is about beeing "anti-church" than why not be against the command not to murder?

I don't see the connection. Surely you don't think that churches are the only thing that keeps murder illegal in society?

Edit: several people complained that atheism is only about non-believe in god. I agree with such a stance but in that case, to make your complaint sound true, it would be more helpfull if you go to th thinking atheist forum and tell THEM that foul language and ad hominem attacks have nothing to do with atheism.

Each atheist has their own individual beliefs about everything...including forum rules. We only share one common lack of belief. The rest is entirely up for debate.

So there wouldn't be any real point in arguing against the rules they have set into place on the grounds of "atheism" or something like that.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I slowly start to get distrfull when atheist tell me what atheism really is and is not. I am well able to form my own opinion based on such experiences.

...would you accept a non-christian explaining to you what your beliefs are or aren't as a christian?

An atheist could literally disagree with me on every issue...except the existence of god...and still be as much of an atheist as I am.

 

[Aseyesee]

...would you accept a non-christian explaining to you what your beliefs are or aren't as a christian?

An atheist could literally disagree with me on every issue...except the existence of god...and still be as much of an atheist as I am.

Sounds alot like chrsitians ...

"Common sense is often not all that common." Love that one ...

 

[quatona]

Sounds alot like chrsitians ...

Yeah, that´s why I am willing to consider every self-professing Christian a Christian. Wouldn´t know how to go about it any other way.

An interesting difference, however:
I observe that self-professing Christians among themselves do often dispute the "True Christianity" of each other.
I do not (or extremely rarely) observe that phenomenon with self-professing atheists.

If hard-pressed to find an explanation for that, the first thing that comes to mind is:
Atheism is not a belief-system, it is the response to a single claim.
Whereas Christianity (as opposed to atheism and theism) tries to cover a lot of issues and topics (i.e. understands itself as a belief-system), and on top refers to a big book as authoritative.

So, with there being communalities, I tend to think that Christianity/atheism is still more like apples/oranges.

 

[LaraLara]

...would you accept a non-christian explaining to you what your beliefs are or aren't as a christian?

The problem with this concept is that I am not a christian. And even if I would be I can not prevent other people from forming an opinion about me.

 

[Strathos]

Yeah, that´s why I am willing to consider every self-professing Christian a Christian. Wouldn´t know how to go about it any other way.

An interesting difference, however:
I observe that self-professing Christians among themselves do often dispute the "True Christianity" of each other.
I do not (or extremely rarely) observe that phenomenon with self-professing atheists.

If hard-pressed to find an explanation for that, the first thing that comes to mind is:
Atheism is not a belief-system, it is the response to a single claim.
Whereas Christianity (as opposed to atheism and theism) tries to cover a lot of issues and topics (i.e. understands itself as a belief-system), and on top refers to a big book as authoritative.

Yet if an atheist converts to Christianity it's common for many atheists will claim that he/she was never a real atheist to begin with.

 

[LaraLara]

That's a shame.



I understand where you're coming from here...but I'd rather not place such limitations on the mentally handicapped. I read a blog once of a woman who had achieved her master's degree from a reputable college (can't remember what major) after she had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. She's supposedly a successful writer and lecturer.



Common sense is often not all that common.



What gave you this idea? I can't say you're wrong...but my first guess would be plain laziness. Moderating a forum takes cooperation and effort...which the forum creator may not be interested in maintaining.

My second guess would be some high prioritization of freedom of expression. Some feel that censorship of any kind is only hurtful.

My third guess would be fairness. Even in a moderated forum such as this, one can get away with insults and rule breaking if they have the right friends who are in charge of moderating. I'm not saying it happens here...just that it could...and if there are no such restrictions on anyone, then everyone is on "equal footing" in that respect.



I don't see the connection. Surely you don't think that churches are the only thing that keeps murder illegal in society?



Each atheist has their own individual beliefs about everything...including forum rules. We only share one common lack of belief. The rest is entirely up for debate.

So there wouldn't be any real point in arguing against the rules they have set into place on the grounds of "atheism" or something like that.

I replied to all of this to other participants. Firstly the forum has an extra rule that allows ad hominem attack and foul language so that is not lazy moderation.

Secondly I am not suggesting that there are no secular reasoning why you should not use murder but if you want to be anti-church at any cost that could be a result.

Thirdly it does not help me that you READ about a person with shizophrenia. I HAVE a similar illness, my husband had shizoohrenia, and I have other friends with such illness so I know a bit better how the average person that does not get in the newspaper fights with such a problem.

I had to increase the dosage of poisonous meds in reponse to what is simply intimidation in that forum. I do not think that agressivity and verbal intimidation is covered by free speech, in my country it would be covered by the laws on insults.

I am free to see commonalities in the atheists I meet even if you don't want. In the moment they all act as a group to defend the forum. I have not seen one here who said "wait a moment, I go and have a talk with them as I don't want that to becone associated with atheism."

Everyone is attacking the messanger, no one is doing something about the message.

 

[LaraLara]

Yet if an atheist converts to Christianity it's common for many atheists will claim that he/she was never a real atheist to begin with.

And atheists who do bad things such as harassing mentally ill people are no "real" atheist either. How great that their are such a "homogenous group" that nobody can realy be catched for anything ever.

 

[quatona]

Yet if an atheist converts to Christianity it's common for many atheists will claim that he/she was never a real atheist to begin with.

I´m not sure I get the grammatical structure of this sentence and thus the meaning.
You mean like when LLLLewis tells us that he was an atheist because he hated God?
Yes, right. I have a thing for logic.

 

[Aseyesee]

Yeah, that´s why I am willing to consider every self-professing Christian a Christian. Wouldn´t know how to go about it any other way.

An interesting difference, however:
I observe that self-professing Christians among themselves do often dispute the "True Christianity" of each other.
I do not (or extremely rarely) observe that phenomenon with self-professing atheists.

If hard-pressed to find an explanation for that, the first thing that comes to mind is:
Atheism is not a belief-system, it is the response to a single claim.
Whereas Christianity (as opposed to atheism and theism) tries to cover a lot of issues and topics (i.e. understands itself as a belief-system), and on top refers to a big book as authoritative.

So, with there being communalities, I tend to think that Christianity/atheism is still more like apples/oranges.

A singlenss is what christanity is after, which really is an inward truth of self, not found/bound by conforming to somethng outside of you, and if imposed on another, serves only to breed this divison in the one who would divide.

The basis for a persons truth is the truth that they are, which is the consensus Jesus has been said to have come to of himself.

For me, belief or unbelief are the same truth to my mind; not being about the content of a question but the question.

 

[quatona]

And atheists who do bad things such as harassing mentally ill people are no "real" atheist either.

Of course they are. Nobody said they weren´t. Don´t make up stuff.

 

[quatona]

A singlenss is what christanity is after, which really is an inward truth of self, not found/bound by conforming to somethng outside of you, and if imposed on another, serves only to breed this divison in the one who would divide.

Not sure all self-professing Christians will agree with you here.
But I´ll try to keep in mind that this is your personal understanding of Christianity.

The basis for a persons truth is the truth that they are, which is the consensus Jesus has been said to have come to of himself.

Sorry, this sounds a little cryptic to me. I think everybody believes they are - which would make "Christianity" a distinction without a difference. But maybe I have misunderstood you? Would you like to expand and explain more?

For me, belief or unbelief are the same truth to my mind; not being about the content of a question but the question.

Which question would that be?
(Sorry, I am a bit lost with your post.)

 

[Aseyesee]

Not sure all self-professing Christians will agree with you here.
But I´ll try to keep in mind that this is your personal understanding of Christianity.


Sorry, this sounds a little cryptic to me. I think everybody believes they are - which would make "Christianity" a distinction without a difference. But maybe I have misunderstood you? Would you like to expand and explain more?


Which question would that be?
(Sorry, I am a bit lost with your post.)

To some Jesus was a heretic to others a savior, I find that relational.

Truth is just a word of perception; Pilates What is truth? in reply to Jesus’ who hears it is of it.

I can sum up your question about the question with the quote you have at the bottom of your page, which the Bible teaches as reasoning with God, as something you come out of rather than go into (which is just a matter of one’s perception of words).

 

[Ana the Ist]

I replied to all of this to other participants. Firstly the forum has an extra rule that allows ad hominem attack and foul language so that is not lazy moderation.

I wouldn't call it an "extra rule" so much as I'd call it a clarification about what is and isn't allowed. It's basically a couple of lines of a paragraph which mention it specifically...but I'll get to that in a minute.

Secondly I am not suggesting that there are no secular reasoning why you should not use murder but if you want to be anti-church at any cost that could be a result.

That still doesn't explain why you think they're "anti-church"...or where you came up with that idea.

Thirdly it does not help me that you READ about a person with shizophrenia. I HAVE a similar illness, my husband had shizoohrenia, and I have other friends with such illness so I know a bit better how the average person that does not get in the newspaper fights with such a problem.

I don't know of a "similar illness" to paranoid schizophrenia, I've also known someone with it...the aggressively negative nature of its hallucinations make it pretty specific. The point was, however, that even in very severe metal disorders...your limitations aren't everyone's limitations...so there's no real basis for accusations of "discrimination".

I had to increase the dosage of poisonous meds in reponse to what is simply intimidation in that forum. I do not think that agressivity and verbal intimidation is covered by free speech, in my country it would be covered by the laws on insults.

Well they do have a rule against threats...so if they were genuinely threatening you, you could've reported it. As for the "free speech"...let's look at what the site rules have to say about that, shall we??

"This forum is based around the principle of allowing people to speak freely as much as possible within reason. We allow swearing, sexual language, and attacks on a person's character, this means that this place is not for everyone. If you are easily offended by such things this may not be the place for you...."

They do have rules against pornographic material, promotion of pedophilia, and also against intentionally disrupting the threads. It even makes it clear that if someone tries to use the rules that allow profanity or character attacks to disrupt the thread...they can be banned for it. So it's not as if they don't have standards at all...

More importantly though, they clearly stated that they allow such language in the interest of free speech. I can only assume that you read the rules, so I'm curious why you came back to this forum to question the reasoning behind it when it's so clearly stated. It doesn't say anything about it being "anti-church" or any such reasons. You may disagree on what should and should not be considered "free speech" but here in the USA, those things are considered free speech.

I am free to see commonalities in the atheists I meet even if you don't want.

You're also free to make mistakes.

In the moment they all act as a group to defend the forum. I have not seen one here who said "wait a moment, I go and have a talk with them as I don't want that to becone associated with atheism."

It isn't associated with atheism...that's your mistake. It's clearly an issue of free speech...but even if it wasn't, it's still not associated with atheism.

You aren't the first christian to make the mistake of thinking we're some monolithic, single minded group...we've all heard it all before. From "atheism is a religion" to "all atheists are materialists"...it's a common mistake. You've spent your whole life associating theological positions with theologies...religious beliefs with religions. You've learned to look at them according to what each group believes and doesn't believe.

Atheism isn't like that. Imagine everyone you know who doesn't believe in leprechauns...do they all share some group of beliefs? I'm betting that you and a muslim probably don't believe in leprechauns, but probably disagree on a lot, and yet agree on other things...none of which have anything to do with leprechauns. That's the easy way to think of this...we don't believe in gods...on everything, we could agree, disagree, or be indifferent. It doesn't matter which because nothing else has anything to do with atheism.

Everyone is attacking the messanger, no one is doing something about the message.

I take it you had a bad experience there. You went there to discuss...physics? If you like, I can recommend a good physics forum that I'm sure will entertain your discussion in a more agreeable manner.

 

[LaraLara]

I replied most of your questions to other because they where asking the same questions. I will NOT reply them over and over again and over again.

I will instead answer that which you asked specifically.

I have bad concentration due to my illness so I overread the rule. Free spech does not cover the rule to insult in my country so I was not prepared that such a rule exists.

Free speech is globally not regarded as a right that can overule other rights such as personality rights.

There are cleare guidlines on how to speak with mentally ill persons and one is not to be aggressive. The aim is to avoid stress at all cost as this worsens any mental illness. If you do not believe me go ask a psychatrist and not your favourite newspaper.

That you do not know an illness that can and was in my case confused with shizophrenia means you have no clue what mental illness are.

Nevertheless you want to teach me, someone who has been seven times in psychatry, has friends and family with such illnesses about what is good for the mentally ill?

Just Why?